Now that the 2020 Election is over....

[peter_speckhard]

Pastor Fienen:
Just how many of the people who post on this forum do you figure are part of Trump's  cult who shower him with adulation and deify him?
Me:
I don’t know, and I will not make that judgment. But I will note when they refer to the statement of those who do if I the president.
Peter, You are not being careful with language. The allegations do not remain remain allegations because people have tried to prove them true and failed. Then they become either lies or items that have no bearing on the matter at hand.
No, I do not believe that thousands of dead people voted  in this election. Because given the scrutiny applied to the process, don’t you think someone would’ve found some proof of this or even tried to present what they thought was proof?
I ask again, how vast a conspiracy, how many thousands of people would’ve had to be in on some massive attempt to make the election fraudulent in favor of Biden? Thousands of poll workers? Dozens, perhaps hundreds of local officials? Secretaries of State in disputed territories? Election judges? National security personnel? Who got all these folks together to skew the election in Biden’s favor?
And how did they manage to pull the wool over the eyes of everybody who was watching these elections, from local poll watchers right up to national security experts?

So what do you do with published lists of names of people who were born 120 years or more or whose obituaries are on record, yet who are also on record as having voted? Do you simply assume it isn't true because it can't be true? That means your demands for proof and evidence are meaningless because you wouldn't consider it proof or evidence even if it were offered. The fact, denial of which is simply lunacy, is that many, many people have been recorded as having voted in this election who were dead long before voting began. That isn't debatable. It is a fact. You simply relabel such facts allegations, then further relabel them debunked allegations because they couldn't be true, then label anyone who doesn't think so a liar.

[peter_speckhard]

If I posited that Kentucky might not exist, nobody would care. Everyone knows it does exist. I might get a few quizzical queries as to why I would say such a thing, but certainly no irritation or anger. But if I suggest that Biden might not have won the election, people get apoplectic. They not only think he won, but they insist that I not question that fact in any way. That isn't normal behavior. It is insecure behavior.

I think many ballots were illegally cast in the name of dead people in this election. I doubt it would change the result, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. I also remain sceptical about vote totals margins in places like Milwaukee. This scepticism will remain regardless of who gets sworn in as president in January unless I see a convincing explanation for the massive improbabilities involved. 

[James S. Rustad]

Joe Biden is the President-Elect of the United States.  Refusal of deniers to acknowledge this is dissemination of toxicity  in our democracy.  Deniers are breaking faith with American history, ideals, and ideas.   It is un-American and disloyal.

Joe Biden is NOT officially the President Elect until after Congress has received and certified the results of the Electoral College vote.  Let the process run its course.  Go the Constitution and various news and legal articles that explain this.

Until then, Joe Biden is the presumptive winner of the election.  The media can unofficially call him "President-Elect of the United States" all they want, and you can accuse those who won't call him "President-Elect of the United States" of being "un-American and disloyal" all you want, but it won't change the facts.  This sort of behavior is not going to help Joe Biden unify the country.

[James S. Rustad]

The African election story is irrelevant.

The article discusses how to detect election fraud.  That discussion seems highly relevant.

Now if you want to argue that none of the red flags mentioned applies to the November 2020 US election, I'm willing to listen, just as I am listening to those who argue that some of them do.

[John_Hannah]

I will presume that any evidence of fraud will be brought to the appropriate state court of law and argued vigorously by the enthusiastic GOP lawyers. Until proven in court I will presume innocence. That's the American way. Is it not?

Peace, JOHN

[Dan Fienen]

I will presume that any evidence of fraud will be brought to the appropriate state court of law and argued vigorously by the enthusiastic GOP lawyers. Until proven in court I will presume innocence. That's the American way. Is it not?

Peace, JOHN

That is the way that it should run, yes. But meanwhile we have a chorus of voices hollering that any evidence of fraud is fake and that the matter should never be taken to court. Any allegations of fraud should be ignored and not investigated until they are proven in court, but they should not go to court until they have been proven in court.

[Richard Johnson]

Just how many of the people who post on this forum do you figure are part of Trump's  cult who shower him with adulation and deify him?

At least one or two.

[Richard Johnson]

I will presume that any evidence of fraud will be brought to the appropriate state court of law and argued vigorously by the enthusiastic GOP lawyers. Until proven in court I will presume innocence. That's the American way. Is it not?

Peace, JOHN

That is the way that it should run, yes. But meanwhile we have a chorus of voices hollering that any evidence of fraud is fake and that the matter should never be taken to court. Any allegations of fraud should be ignored and not investigated until they are proven in court, but they should not go to court until they have been proven in court.

Gee, I could have said much the same thing last year, but substitute "evidence of Presidential misconduct" and "impeachment inquiry."

[David Garner]

Joe Biden is the President-Elect of the United States.  Refusal of deniers to acknowledge this is dissemination of toxicity  in our democracy.  Deniers are breaking faith with American history, ideals, and ideas.   It is un-American and disloyal.

How come faith with American history, ideals, and being "un-American and disloyal," only applies to Democratic presumptive winners?

You and Pastor Austin have spent the past several months just trashing the President of the United States every chance you get.  Please spare me the call to civility now.  It is hollow and empty coming from either of you given your behavior here of late.

If all that is too obtuse, let me say it more plainly -- I don't care at all what either of you have to say about criticizing Joe Biden or anyone else, about the integrity of elections, about respect for the office.  I will behave as I always have with regard to those things, which is to say, better than either of you.

[D. Engebretson]

Joe Biden is the President-Elect of the United States.  Refusal of deniers to acknowledge this is dissemination of toxicity  in our democracy.  Deniers are breaking faith with American history, ideals, and ideas.   It is un-American and disloyal.

If a man or woman is technically, according to the law of our country, not yet the "President-Elect" until the electors in the Electoral College formally cast their votes, why would it be a "dissemination of toxicity in our democracy" not to mention "un-American and disloyal" to refer to him or her as the "presumptive president-elect"? To refer to him in such a way is not automatically to call into question the legitimacy of his election, even if some might do so.

[Charles Austin]

Pastor Hannah writes:
I will presume that any evidence of fraud will be brought to the appropriate state court of law and argued vigorously by the enthusiastic GOP lawyers. Until proven in court I will presume innocence. That's the American way. Is it not?
I comment:
Yes, that is it. Do people here not think that if there were instances of a massive fraud against Trump that the republican party would not be pursuing it vigorously?
There probably was some fraudulent voting in this past election. But it was not massive, it was not organized, and it if those votes were cast out, it would not have affected the outcome. Matter of fact, there may have been some fraudulent votes for the incumbent president.
Those who keep crying “fraud” are going to have to explain why they don’t trust the entire law enforcement system of our country.

[Voelker]

Just how many of the people who post on this forum do you figure are part of Trump's  cult who shower him with adulation and deify him?

At least one or two.

Count me out. I'm personally not at all bothered that Trump himself is (likely) gone (he's a terrible distraction and ends up working against the positive directions his administration has tried to take), and am very happy to see that divided government is likely to continue; the less government can do, the less harm it can do. Both sides are equally evil, but one side is evil in a self-interested way, which means they are easier to distract and less likely to bother themselves with hurting large numbers of people in direct ways, as that's usually not terribly profitable, while the other side is evil in a do-gooder way, looking to get their fingers into everyone's pies through Big Sistering everything, which hurts far more people, far more directly, and usually can't be rooted out for generations. It makes it a slightly easier choice that once side is far less likely to lecture me while ordering me about — I strongly suspect that many voters choose based on who they can stomach listening to for the next four years, which is pretty much all that is needed to explain 2016 and 2020 — the horror of having to listen to Mrs. Clinton made voting for Trump easy; the prospect of continuing to listen to him made voting for Biden somewhat less difficult.

[Robert Johnson]

I will presume that any evidence of fraud will be brought to the appropriate state court of law and argued vigorously by the enthusiastic GOP lawyers.

Well, after this doxxing of the lawyers - and the abuse that followed it - the primary law firm in the Pennsylvania case has withdrawn from the case.
legalinsurrection.com/2020/11/lincoln-project-latest-campaign-targets-trumps-law-firm-lawyers-and-clients-of-the-firm/

There is a DC operation as well: disrn.com/news/leftist-group-launches-harassment-campaign-on-trumps-election-lawyers/

The Cancel Culture on display.

[Charles Austin]

Or maybe they quit because their client wouldn’t follow their legal advice. Or maybe they quit because they kept losing all their cases.
Actually I think the most rational explanation is that Trump fired them.
Oh, and then there’s the matter of continuing to cry “fraud” when there is absolutely no evidence of massive fraud, continuing to try and undermine public confidence in the election is indeed an assault on our democracy. I even worry that some folks in this modest forum are doing that, perhaps unconsciously, but…
Hey, how’s this for irony? Here’s the old 1960s radical, a guy considered anti-government, anti-establishment, wanting to bring about a revolution, now defending our government and its processes.
And here’s law and order Republicans Casting aspersions on our law and our order.

[peter_speckhard]

Or maybe they quit because their client wouldn’t follow their legal advice. Or maybe they quit because they kept losing all their cases.
Actually I think the most rational explanation is that Trump fired them.

The most rational explanation conflicts with what the press is widely reporting? Say it ain’t so!